Extended limitation in central excise needs wilful suppression; approved classification lists defeat time-barred duty demand.

Central excise duty demand could not be sustained where the products were disclosed in classification lists filed from time to time and those lists were verified and approved by the Department. The record did not show wilful suppression of facts or misdeclaration with intent to evade duty, and mere classification under a particular heading was insufficient to trigger the extended limitation period under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the show cause notice covered a period beyond the normal six months, the demand was held time-barred and the extended period was not invocable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty was barred by limitation under the extended period provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The products were disclosed in the classification lists filed from time to time, and those lists were verified and approved by the Department. The record did not establish wilful suppression of facts or misdeclaration with intent to evade duty. Mere classification under a particular heading, especially after departmental approval of the lists, was insufficient to invoke the extended limitation period. Since the show cause notice covered a period beyond the normal six months, the demand could not be sustained on limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the duty demand was time-barred.

---